Display posts from previous

Sort by

Thanks for the education, as usual, Huck and Ross. I don't want to respond exactly, but I am thinking about people who might start reading this thread without knowing the context in which Ross quoted me. It was on page 13 of "The 5x14 Theory--an Investigation," in "The Researcher's Study" (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=365&start=120#p5259). The Chariot was one of three examples I gave, the others being the Hanged Man and the Fool, of possible intercity influence, and considerations of what image is earlier (as distinct from which actual card is earlier). Huck and I had been discussing the 6 PMB cards by the second artist. He was relating specific Florentine imagery of 1465 and before to the cards, while I was bringing to bear CY and PMB imagery along with extremely generic Florentine (or Bolognese or Ferrarese) ideas. I think we ended up tentatively agreeing that the 6 cards might have been a product of dialogue between Lorenzo and Galeazzo, although he still gives more credit to Lorenzo (and probably could dispense with Galeazzo), while I give more to Galeazzo (and could probably dispense with Lorenzo).

My reflection upon the process is that what we are doing is a little like what Biblical scholars did when discussing which of the synoptic gospels came first, or even more particularly, which of various wordings of a particular "saying" of Jesus came first, and what happened and why in the various versions, including the non-canonical versions such as in the Gospel of Thomas. They developed techniques of "form criticism" and "redaction criticism" that are pretty subtle--and often not leading to consensus. Also, they assumed the gradual coelescence of separate communities--a point we might not be able to assume here, although it remains my working hypothesis.

In the case of the Chariot, I found Ross's example of the triumphator's winged helmet quite helpful. It does look like one, although I wouldn't have seen it unless Ross pointed it out. That may be due simply to deterioration. I think it is interesting that it comes from Florence. That was part of the point of my reference to the fleur-de-lys, that it points to Florence, possibly even Florence after the Medici adopted that device (although it was already a device of the city of Florence). So I would be interested in any more imperator's-winged-helmet examples you have, from other tarocchi cities. But apart from identifying the city, it looked to me as though the winged helmet was a response to the condittiere's hat rather than the other way around, in as much as the winged helmet is less typical in depictions of triumphators. Likewise, the fleur-de-lys looks like a response to the seven palle (balls), which in as much as they are all the same color are from before the Medici adopted the purple ball (at the same time as they adopted the fleur-de-lys, I think, but Huck will correct me on this). And the plume on the horse seems to me like a response to an unplumed horse--even if it turns out that there were other depictions of plumed horses in Florence or other Northern Italian cities. It seems like an addition, as it's the only early Chariot that has it. (I'm not sure what the principle is that I am using; I am just feeling my way along.) Also, I don't mean "response" in a one-upmanship way, like one designer saying, I can do better than that, but simply that one is like a revision of the other.

Ross: I would apply the same argument as above, last paragraph, to the difference in order between where the Chariot appears in the Charles VI and where it appears in the Rothschild sheet's deck. It originally appeared after Fortune, as in the Charles VI, and then somebody said, "Hey, it doesn't belong there. Caesar needs to be before the virtues, not after." So one card designer, whose cards get used in Bologna (whether he himself is in Florence or Bologna is immaterial), puts him after Love. But other card designers, the "Senecans," say "No, it's good the way it is" and keep him in the old order, after the virtues. (I am responding to viewtopic.php?f=12&t=334&start=10#p5143 but in the present context).

A case can be made (well, I made it in the thread "The 5x14 theory, an investigation": I will find the post and insert the link when I have a chance) that the CY also put the Chariot after the virtues. Look at how they are ordered by the Beinecke, by suit. This is an ordering that predated the Beinecke's acquisition of the cards, according to the Beinecke librarian, whom I emailed (I posted the email, too.).

I notice, on post viewtopic.php?f=12&t=334&start=10#p4285, that your first image has a hat with something like wings on it, but which might be just poor imitations of wings, cheap affectations that might have realistically been in style then (like hood ornaments on the Mercury car in the 1950's). That image also has a plume nearby, but I think it's on a rider and not a horse.

Your later image, in that post, of a metal eagle on top of a helmet is reminiscent of the Emperor's hat in the CY, with an eagle on it. So that is a weak sort of precedent for the Rothschild-sheet winged helmet, outside of Florence--predating the Rothschild, I would think, because it is closer to actual reality at that time.

mikeh wrote:Ross: I would apply the same argument as above, last paragraph, to the difference in order between where the Chariot appears in the Charles VI and where it appears in the Rothschild sheet's deck. It originally appeared after Fortune, as in the Charles VI, and then somebody said, "Hey, it doesn't belong there. Caesar needs to be before the virtues, not after."

I'm not confident that we can interpret anything about the order of the cards from their positions on the Rothschild/Beaux-Arts sheet. Fortune-Angel-Time, or Devil-Chariot-Death (or vice versa for both) is no established order. All we can say is that they are almost identical to the standard Bolognese designs known from the 17th century onward, so we consider them Bolognese and take it for granted that their order followed that system. Why think otherwise? Just to be contrary?

For Charles VI, the numbering does not seem to be original, since it is penned in cursive numbers in a tiny bit of available space at the very top (or bottom in the case of the Traitor - another indication of being secondary) of the cards. The cards appear to be Florentine, and the numbering too, but although the cards reflect the earliest stage of the pattern, the numbering may reflect a later stage, even as late as the early 16th century.

My position is that the Florentine ideology of the great man overcoming Fortune (which you perceptively note as Senecan - have you been reading Stacey? Or are you just that well-read?), culminating in chapter 25 of Machiavelli's "The Prince", influenced the position of the Chariot. First higher than the Virtues but below Fortune (which appears to be the case in Rosenwald and is listed as such in the c. 1500 "Strambotti di triumphi"), the final position shortly thereafter became dominant over Fortune, the order which persists in Minchiate.

Why would Caesar's natural place be "before the Virtues"? And why is Prudence missing then?

So one card designer, whose cards get used in Bologna (whether he himself is in Florence or Bologna is immaterial), puts him after Love. But other card designers, the "Senecans," say "No, it's good the way it is" and keep him in the old order, after the virtues. (I am responding to viewtopic.php?f=12&t=334&start=10#p5143 but in the present context).

But why would the Bolognese-style inventor decide to demote him in such a way? And if so, how is it that the Tarot de Marseille designer did the same thing? (Tarot de Marseille obviously doesn't come from Bologna)

The Chariot appears in several places in the attested orders - his highest is just above Fortune. Love doesn't move around so much (the Virtues of course are the least stable). You can kind of "see" him moving in the Vieville, where he is sandwiched between Justice and Fortitude, midway between Love and Fortune.

If you prefer the Senecan ideology, I don't blame you, since I held it for a while too. But I couldn't explain how the sequence Love-Chariot was invented independently twice that way - and it is counterintuitive to be put where it is, if he is anything but the protagonist in the middle sequence (or a "natural pair" with Love, as War - this interpretation raises its own difficulties, among them why so many people didn't get it and separated them).

A case can be made (well, I made it in the thread "The 5x14 theory, an investigation": I will find the post and insert the link when I have a chance) that the CY also put the Chariot after the virtues. Look at how they are ordered by the Beinecke, by suit. This is an ordering that predated the Beinecke's acquisition of the cards, according to the Beinecke librarian, whom I emailed (I posted the email, too.).

I recall looking that up and coming to the conclusion that the either you were misinterpreting the meaning of Beinecke's system or that it was ad hoc and without value, or both. But I'll look again.

In any case, ordering the CY cards will almost always be a very speculative exercise, especially for the Theological Virtues.

I notice, on post viewtopic.php?f=12&t=334&start=10#p4285, that your first image has a hat with something like wings on it, but which might be just poor imitations of wings, cheap affectations that might have realistically been in style then (like hood ornaments on the Mercury car in the 1950's). That image also has a plume nearby, but I think it's on a rider and not a horse.

I'm not sure how you can distinguish cheap imitation wings from "real" wings here! Maybe the Rothschild sheet's winged helmet has only cheap imitations too ;)

But in any case I don't get the point of this comment - whether in fashion or not, whether expensive or cheap, they are there.

The point of all of my winged helmet examples is not to prove it's Caesar - it's to show that it's not implausible, and also to show that the winged helmet does not privilege the interpretation as "Mercury" - which is an anachronism. Gods and Roman heroes regularly wear it, including Caesar. Also we tend to think of Gauls as wearing it, but in this cassone painting of "Romans vs. Gauls" (with Caesar, no doubt, since he literally wrote the book on the war with the Gauls), only Romans wear it:http://www.rosscaldwell.com/images/triu ... gauls1.jpg
(two at the front - hard to make out I know. Caesar has a golden eagle)

Your later image, in that post, of a metal eagle on top of a helmet is reminiscent of the Emperor's hat in the CY, with an eagle on it. So that is a weak sort of precedent for the Rothschild-sheet winged helmet, outside of Florence--predating the Rothschild, I would think, because it is closer to actual reality at that time.

The point of all the winged-helmets (on Caesar or not) is just to show that it not unheard of, and maybe not even rare. Interpreting the Triumphator as Caesar is dependent upon the context of the sequence, if it is an allegory of Triumph, imprudence-impudence, and betrayal. It could be that "Caesar" is not explicitly intended, but would be assumed to be understood in the context of the sequence - the message is more important than the actual figure, although he is the only historical example that would fit, if it ever were intended to be historicized.

I thought, that this new picture became part of the "winged helm" discussion.

For the "winged helm" ...

I would think, that the Florentine painter Apollonio di Giovanni in the 1450's, who served you with the big Fama picture, in his Aeneas edition (at the same link location) had a considerable engagement to paint interesting hats, helmets etc.
He does it so excessively, that one might think, that it is a common interest just in this time ... so I looked for your "winged helmet". During the earlier discussion around this man, I had the idea, that he might be the painter to the Charles VI deck cause his hats and crown remember the hats of Pope and Emperor in Charles VI.

I found this impressive woman called Venus ... Mercury had winged feet, not a winged helmet and a hat totally different.

************

The only other winged-helmet person I found as an unnamed person standing beside Menelaos in a scene, where both observe the beheading of King Priamos by Neoptolemus also called Pyrrus, son of Achilles (in the Trojan war Troja couldn't be taken without Neoptolemos, so said the oracle).

Well, this is the scene of "total triumph" for the Greek, the head of the enemy is falling. Usually unnamed persons are meaningless additions in the text, but in this case I would imagine, that the winged-helmet hero presents the "ghost of Achilles" in the form of the victor of the war (what the father didn't, fulfilled the son).

Well, a male sort of triumph ...

************
But, back to Trionfi cards, which had been wedding gifts for brides of noble descent, we have with "6 Love = Cupido" followed by "7 Chariot = Venus with winged helmet" ... and, whatever Caesar's winged helmet means, that has logic.

Further I found, that there's a scene, in which Venus-Cupido are shown together and on the same picture I find some men playing chess:

It's not new, that chess in contrast of its "simulated war" was related to marriage, wedding and love, at least since the echecs amoureux of Edvart da Conty.
... ... Also it's not new, that I try to explain the idea, that Trionfi cards developed under influence of chess iconography.

Ross: In using the word "Senecan" I was just quoting you, somewhere. I'm just informed enough that it made an impression. I am still thinking about your comments. Thanks for taking the time. Maybe I need to be on the "Bologna" thread for a bit, as I seem to be in quicksand here. And thanks to Huck, also, for those excellent images of helmeted Venus.

About the Anonymous Parisian Chariot. Yes, swans pull the chariot of Venus in the triumph depictions. I would think "driven by love" would be preferable to "dragged along by love." In the Phaedrus and the Symposium, love is the motive force that leads one to the divine, if guided and restrained by reason. The swans are like the Cupid riding the horse on the right side of the chest that Ross showed us, and whom we saw on the Parisian's Lover card. The Cupid on the chest spurs his horse forward without guiding it. Reason is represented partly by the groom, who does guide the swans, and partly by the triumphator himself, who communicates to the groom (reason and courage respectively, with the swans as appetite, if Anonymous Parisian is following Ficino on the Phaedrus). Reason's guidance shows itself in different ways. Virtue is one way, for which a scepter is appropriate. Music is another, which a musical instrument would represent. So what the man is holding is perhaps ambiguous. I think Anonymous Parisian is reacting against images such as that of the Triumph of Venus at the Schifanoia in Ferrara, where the man simply surrenders to Venus and doesn't look where he is headed.(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... 476-84.jpg). There are higher forms of love.

Thanks, lamort, and Fantastic, Robert. I hadn't noticed the similarity to the canopy at all! Yes, definitely.

So here are my thoughts on all three. I'm sure they have been expressed before in relation to the Marseille images, but perhaps not tying it to the Anonymous Parisian. The Noblet (center) expresses a similar relationship to the Phaedrus as the Anonymous Parisian: the Noblet light horse is the equivalent of the groom (light horse in the Phaedrus equals courage) and the dark horse as the equivalent of the swans (dark horse in the Phaedrus equals appetite). In both the Noblet and the Dodal (right), the fact that one horse has its legs pointed in one way but its head in the other way, the same way as the other horse, whose heads and feet all point the same way, indicates the same thing: the conflicted, lustful horse is being constrained to follow the unconflicted, noble horse (and the Noblet charioteer, who is looking in that direction) instead of dallying to partake of things closer to hand (or in the other direction), but so far only its head is responding. The Vieville is the same as the Dodal, but expressed with human heads.

In the Noblet charriot the driver decidedly looks to the left, as opposed to the unruly horse (in the Conver or Chosson charriot in a less obvious is also looking to the left)... in that it speaks of conflict, what opinion deserve the wheels?

Another feature I've been thinking about recently appears in the painting though, and that's the stylistic way the artist has rendered the riverbank. It's exactly like the precipice that we find in the Visconti Sforza cards. Could it be that a riverbank is what it is meant to represent on the early cards? I've started a new thread so as not to wander away from The Chariot.